Can I ask why they work?
The issue I had was that if the LG Prada was inadmissible because it was not sold in the US does that mean that it is legal theft. that is anyone can patent said item in the US and make financial claim as no view of prior art would be considered. it even suggest that the art of invention of trade dress need not happen you only have to copy.
Isn't that ironic

Know what the fun part is?
Apple uses Foxconn for manufacturing. Samsung is investing heavily in the US, 4Billion USD in the state of texas alone to support chip manufacturing. Billions more for design in California.
Who is contibuting more to the US economy, makes me wonder :-)

don't be obtuse: design patents are prime tinder for the coming inferno of IP reform. everyone knows that this area of law has simply been gang-raped by decades of bought lawyers.
read the constitution.

I predict a lot more design patents and trade dresses will be filed.
They work, juries understand them and I think they actually have a role for the systems maker, especially in markets where the underlying hardware is pretty similar.
I feel another op/ed coming on....

Note the Ars Technica article cited above is a re-write of the SJ Mercury News article that actually did the good and timely interview.
These days its hard to tell who does interviews and who pontificates.

This verdict, complete or otherwise, is the proverbial other shoe dropping, if you will, for Google–they managed to escape scot-free from the Oracle litigation, but now face the obvious concern that, as some point, it will be necessary to distinguish Android from Apple's prior art by isolating the underlying UX / OS features of the software from the trade dress / physical design of their partners' hardware devices. There is plenty of opportunity here for Google's Android to make inroads into the third-party embedded device space–I see this as an opportunity for Google to succeed where Apple will "fail".